GLOBAL POWER GENERATION LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 1, AMRITSAR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the present petition, pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Supreme Court's decision in that case was rendered in favour of the petitioner. In light of this consensus and the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court, the High Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 30.06.2021 was quashed as a result. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue is directly covered by a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court should follow that precedent to grant relief.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Global Power Generation Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging a notice dated 30.06.2021. The assessment year in question is 2015-16. The issue raised in the petition was covered by a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 (469) ITR 46. The High Court was considering the matter based on this precedent.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the issue raised in the petition, pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the issue in the present petition is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in the Rajeev Bansal case, which was rendered in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition should be allowed in terms of that judgment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not oppose the allowance of the petition based on the Supreme Court's precedent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN (Sr. No. 211)
Global Po
Assistant
CORAM
Present :
DEEPAK (1) assessmen 16, is cov Court in U (2)
terms of t (supra) re
16.09.202 sunil yadav
Wh N THE HIGH COURT OF P AT CHANDI
ower Generation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax M : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Lokesh Garg, Advocate Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Adv
Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior S Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondent(s)-Income Ta
* * * K SIBAL, J. (Oral) It is undisputed that the pre nt year 2015-16, in which the iss vered in the petitioner’s favour Union of India and others Vs. R In the light of the afore con the law laid down by the Supre esulting in quashing of the impug
( v
hether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No hether reportable : Yes / No PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH
CWP No.11435 of 2023 Date of decision : 16.09.2026 .....Petition ` .....Respond E DEEPAK SIBAL E SUNISH BINDLISH for vocate for the appellants. Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel and ax Department. esent petition which pertains to sue raised pertains to the year 20 r by the judgment of the Supre Rajeev Bansal, 2024 (469) ITR 4 nsensus, this petition is allowed eme Court in Rajeev Bansal’s c gned notice dated 30.06.2021. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE ( SUNISH BINDLISH ) JUDGE o o
6 ners dent the 015- eme 46. d in case SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.21 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
